Zero Punctuation: Metal Gear Solid 4

[The Thief]

AAAAAAAAAAAAnd mailbag showdown nr.2

I hope so; the first one was priceless. Besides, what games are there left to review...

 

[Jumplion]

AAAAAAAAAAAAnd mailbag showdown nr.2

Can't wait!

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

It may interest people to know that this thread currently has more than twice the responses of the Halo 3 thread.

Now I've never played MGS4 (or any Metal Gear game for that matter) so I won't say anything about it.

However, I will say that this game seems much more important to Sony fans than Halo 3 is to Microsoft fans. I wonder why ps3 people will rally so strongly around this one game while 360 people leave their biggest title to be torn apart.

At the risk of sounding like a pathetic fanboy I'll give my two theories. Either Sony fans need to rally because this is the only game on their system widely recognized as extremely good or Microsoft fans have too many high-quality titles to care what their system war foes think.

By the way, I'm not a pathetic fanboy. If I had the money I would buy a ps3 and several games for it. I'd still probably prefer the 360 because it has achievements and most multi-platform games are better on it.

 

[Evilducks]

Jumplion, saying somebody is being "burned" by everybody responding to him is immaterial without providing any examples of this actually occurring. I don't even believe you are arguing about the same thing he is. I'm actually curious as to what you think this discussion is about exactly.

Considering Tempdude0 has most of the facts in hand on MGS4 I think he's probably watched most, if not all of, MGS4. Since most of what he is arguing about is delivered through painfully long cut-scenes he doesn't need to be the one behind the controller, as the game-play is irrelevant to his argument.

 

[Evilducks]

It may interest people to know that this thread currently has more than twice the responses of the Halo 3 thread.

Now I've never played MGS4 (or any Metal Gear game for that matter) so I won't say anything about it.

However, I will say that this game seems much more important to Sony fans than Halo 3 is to Microsoft fans. I wonder why ps3 people will rally so strongly around this one game while 360 people leave their biggest title to be torn apart.

At the risk of sounding like a pathetic fanboy I'll give my two theories. Either Sony fans need to rally because this is the only game on their system widely recognized as extremely good or Microsoft fans have too many high-quality titles to care what their system war foes think.

By the way, I'm not a pathetic fanboy. If I had the money I would buy a ps3 and several games for it. I'd still probably prefer the 360 because it has achievements and most multi-platform games are better on it.

I think it's do to the increased viewership of ZP. Had Halo 3 come out last week I think the thread would easily be this long.

 

[VeryOblivious]

People who hate the game mostly do so because they cannot define the game as serious in pieces, but ultimately an entertainment piece used to portray some semi-serious messages to an audience. They fail to suspend their disbelief because they think that since parts of the game are serious, or because fans think it is some grandiosely designed piece or art, the entire scope of the game should be taken to par with the serious business only police.

Fans of the serious either knee-jerk react to that attitude, or tend to view the game as art that transcends the genre. The issue here is that the game does not have the pretensions of thinking itself that, only its fans do.

That's part of my point, it's fiction and the medium the author chose to express his message can't be judged with arguments as "it isn't realistic" and such. But also we're "debating" another matter. The "bad writing" because of "lack of coherence in the story itself". I'm trying to 'prove' that using the in-game logic, it is coherent.

It's obvious that he knows that rose and her child don't have nanomachines. The point is it doesn't make any sense for the AI's not to put nanos in them.

I already said it. Why would the A.I's put nanos in Rose? Rose isn't even a threat, nor a soldier. The A.I's put nanos only to soldiers in this stage. Why would an A.I break its own rule when it's not necessary? It is absurd.

Everything? It is the essence of understanding what the nanobots do. How hard is this? Honestly?

Based in my hypothesis, it still hasn't anything to do with... Anything.

A lot of people have son's, why would this one be any different. If Raiden having a son would be important at all to the AI's, don't you think they would have implanted nanos in his girlfriend?

You misunderstood. The child was important to Rose, that's why she hid it. The Patriots didn't have any intention to inject nanos to Rose, since Raiden was with her.

Except the nano's should know, at which point the plot falls apart.

If the patriots didnt't discover the plan, it's safe to assume Ocelot didn't have nanos. Simple, huh?

Solid grouped them together, you're nitpicking, badly.

Nitpicking? Just see the FIRST cutscene. Later in the game, The Patriots - when mentioned -are treated as a separated entity from Liquid.

Yes, it's called a plot device, and a bad one in this instance.

Already explained.

Then you proved his point that Kojima has filled MGS4 (and I think the series in general) with useless verbose blather to try and conceal a very simple plot.

I don't know what are you intending to prove. Of course it's a simple plot when one individual has ALL the information regarding it. One must be a little dumb to find it difficult after knowing everything.

This is back to the Ocelot malarkey about convincing things that are in his brain that he is Liquid. Come on, simple plot that you just explained, keep up.

No, no. I was referring that "self-hypnosis" never happened. Please re-read what tempdude wrote.
He wrote: 'A great example is Ocelot. By the end of this game, he SPOILERS! Is Ocelot, who is pretending to be liquid snake by using hypnosis'
That scene never mentions "I'm ocelot and I was being hypnotized", it doesn't even mention "I'm ocelot". Although, it could be deduced with "I'm Liquid's doppelganger", which again, is inconclusive.
My point is, if he was going to debate something, he has to know about what he's talking about.

Wait, liquid is his own mother? Now I'm confused. Loyal to who?

Liquid's Mother? Haven't you said we're talking about Ocelot? Come on, stop playing dumb. It becomes boring.

Only relevant in pointing out the absurdity of the story. One of the major problems was all of the story threads he created 20 years ago when he made the first two Metal Gear games. The plot was never intended to go this far, it was just a very 'video gamey' stealth game. Unfortunately these less than serious plot points were dragged along as the story... matured? I suppose that's an appropriate term, though I hardly want to apply it here. Comics often suffer from this illness, many times resulting in rebooting the series to remove the useless garbage that builds up.

I don't see the problem here. He likes ninjas as a 'cool' character as he presumably thought that a fatman in skates would be cool. The aspect of the ninja itself isn't part of the story, the experimentation over the body is. Haven't we made an agreement about the fiction and reality?

No, he never said because of the dictionary meaning of words that his view was objective (even if I tend to think he's the closest one to 'objective' that I've read here). So, you're the one not reading still.

Then what did he say? I simply stated his arguments were subjective when he mentioned the "dryness" and I receive a pretty laughable answer:
'No...It's not subjective. I'm not going for "interpretive language" here. It's all cold, hard, and dictionary based. '
In my very same answer, I indicated that if he was making a reference only to Terran, then leave that comment out of a "summarization". Am I still wrong?

The problem with you arguing this is such a clear and simplistic story is that if that is indeed the case then it's bad writing in his inability to explain it in a much more concise and hopefully punchy manner. If the story isn't that simple then your simplistic explanation of it proves it is again bad writing because you think you know what is happening but don't and thus he failed to tell the story well.

Again you're falling in the previous fallacy. I hope you understand it.

Kojima doesn't possess this skill. He indulges in the details to an extreme level that only pull you out of the story and force you to realize your just taking in inconsequential information that has no bearing on what is happening. I think sometimes Kojima forgets he has a visual medium and just reads pages of dialog to you. When you are in a visual medium you need to use it. The rest of the time he forgets you're in an interactive medium.

Let's suppose the liberty to get or dismiss the essential enciclopedic information is given, much like Deus Ex (another game with a similar conspirational plot). What would be the difference between skiping a cutscene and simply passing by an important character? Pretty much none. In contrast, the endings of Deus Ex pretty much lasted 2 minutes and could be picked up by anyone. In MGS4, if you don't care about the story, then you don't care about the conclusion[1]. Ergo, you're there for the gameplay, the graphics, maybe the music and the fun factor. MGS4 does that wrong? Well, if you don't want action, you CAN go for stealth. If you want action, the game is full of it.

Now, about the pacing... That's a subjective matter. I found it good. You don't? That's a shame. I don't know why you bring this up again.

 

[yzzlthtz]

My head hurts after reading the latest page - so much debate over the story of MGS4 and whether its confusing or not - here's a hint - when 5 pages of arguements don't resolve the ingame elements, its probably confusing.

Hideo knows what the game is, and he knows what it isn't.

Given he made MGS2, I'd say he doesn't. He thinks a game is a movie - tisn't.

AAAHHHHHH! SHUT UP!!!!! AAAHHHHHHH!

 

[Jumplion]

Jumplion, saying somebody is being "burned" by everybody responding to him is immaterial without providing any examples of this actually occurring. I don't even believe you are arguing about the same thing he is. I'm actually curious as to what you think this discussion is about exactly.

Considering Tempdude0 has most of the facts in hand on MGS4 I think he's probably watched most, if not all of, MGS4. Since most of what he is arguing about is delivered through painfully long cut-scenes he doesn't need to be the one behind the controller, as the game-play is irrelevant to his argument.

You tell me, i think this whole argument is pointless as everyone has their opinion but to me Tempdude0 is trying to imply his opinion (or more accurately Yahtzee's) as fact. And i had an example of indigo_Dingo proving him wrong. Of course, it all depends on how you see "burning" as in my opinion tempdude0 is getting burned by his own points. You may think that he's the most sense out of anyone here but that is your opinion and i don't have to prove it to you because it is your opinion

I'm still waiting for a reply on what exactly this argument is.

@Eldritch Warlord: It probably is what EvilDuck said with the increased viewers or that everything that Yahtzee said about Halo 3 was correct but he says many things wrong with MGS4, oh deer i'm a jackass!! NOOOO!! Okay, no more arguing randomly! I'm clean.

 

[Evilducks]

I already said it. Why would the A.I's put nanos in Rose? Rose isn't even a threat, nor a soldier. The A.I's put nanos only to soldiers in this stage. Why would an A.I break its own rule when it's not necessary? It is absurd.


Based in my hypothesis, it still hasn't anything to do with... Anything.


You misunderstood. The child was important to Rose, that's why she hid it. The Patriots didn't have any intention to inject nanos to Rose, since Raiden was with her.


If the patriots didnt't discover the plan, it's safe to assume Ocelot didn't have nanos. Simple, huh?

So, The plot device that the AI's only put nano's in soldiers works for Rose, but then is conveniently ignored when it comes to Ocelot. Considering they had ample opportunity to inject them when he was working with Liquid, not to mention they could have been inside the hand. Simple? Yes. Makes sense? No. It's idiotic to believe that the super conspiracy would forget to put nano's in a figure they've known was a key player for a very long time. It breaks even suspension of disbelief.

The other bit that is bad writing is retelling pieces of the past over and over again. They don't provide enough information to people new to the series to pick up what is going on and the provide too much for people who do follow the series. Absurdity of the story aside, this is the part that really annoys me about the writing and destroys the pacing (that and the unnecessary detail).

The rest of the plot analysis doesn't matter, these were the key points where you destroyed your own argument.

Then what did he say? I simply stated his arguments were subjective when he mentioned the "dryness" and I receive a pretty laughable answer:
'No...It's not subjective. I'm not going for "interpretive language" here. It's all cold, hard, and dictionary based. '
In my very same answer, I indicated that if he was making a reference only to Terran, then leave that comment out of a "summarization". Am I still wrong?

What he said was Terra was using made up definitions of words in her arguments. The definitions of these words were not up for debate as they are clearly spelled out in the dictionary. It's not subjective as to what they mean. This has nothing to do with the argument at hand, it was a dispute between he and Terra that you broadened into a context that didn't exist.

Let's suppose the liberty to get or dismiss the essential enciclopedic information is given, much like Deus Ex (another game with a similar conspirational plot). What would be the difference between skiping a cutscene and simply passing by an important character? Pretty much none. In contrast, the endings of Deus Ex pretty much lasted 2 minutes and could be picked up by anyone. In MGS4, if you don't care about the story, then you don't care about the conclusion[1]. Ergo, you're there for the gameplay, the graphics, maybe the music and the fun factor. MGS4 does that wrong? Well, if you don't want action, you CAN go for stealth. If you want action, the game is full of it.

Now, about the pacing... That's a subjective matter. I found it good. You don't? That's a shame. I don't know why you bring this up again.

I see you use examples, and a bad one at that, considering I've never played Deus Ex. Nice that you can follow your own logic and not confuse the argument in the same manner you accused Tempdude0 of. You're making bad assumptions about what I want out of the game. You assume because I can admit fault in something it means I don't like that aspect of it. I actually enjoy the story when I'm not being forced to rehash things I know over and over again or things that don't matter. It's a very fun and campy plot that I can't believe anybody would take seriously. This doesn't make it a masterpiece of writing, it makes it a pulpy game with adequate gameplay. It's a shame it couldn't have been better, if only he had an editor.

 

[yzzlthtz]

It may interest people to know that this thread currently has more than twice the responses of the Halo 3 thread.

Now I've never played MGS4 (or any Metal Gear game for that matter) so I won't say anything about it.

However, I will say that this game seems much more important to Sony fans than Halo 3 is to Microsoft fans. I wonder why ps3 people will rally so strongly around this one game while 360 people leave their biggest title to be torn apart.

At the risk of sounding like a pathetic fanboy I'll give my two theories. Either Sony fans need to rally because this is the only game on their system widely recognized as extremely good or Microsoft fans have too many high-quality titles to care what their system war foes think.

By the way, I'm not a pathetic fanboy. If I had the money I would buy a ps3 and several games for it. I'd still probably prefer the 360 because it has achievements and most multi-platform games are better on it.

you may have something there. but comparing Halo 3 to MGS4 is like comparing Peanut Butter M&Ms to a 5 Course Italian feast. After eating a bunch of M&Ms, you probably won't have room or appreciation for the feast, but you'll pick at it and make amateur comments about its garishness.

 

[Jumplion]

It may interest people to know that this thread currently has more than twice the responses of the Halo 3 thread.

Now I've never played MGS4 (or any Metal Gear game for that matter) so I won't say anything about it.

However, I will say that this game seems much more important to Sony fans than Halo 3 is to Microsoft fans. I wonder why ps3 people will rally so strongly around this one game while 360 people leave their biggest title to be torn apart.

At the risk of sounding like a pathetic fanboy I'll give my two theories. Either Sony fans need to rally because this is the only game on their system widely recognized as extremely good or Microsoft fans have too many high-quality titles to care what their system war foes think.

By the way, I'm not a pathetic fanboy. If I had the money I would buy a ps3 and several games for it. I'd still probably prefer the 360 because it has achievements and most multi-platform games are better on it

Actually, tommorow on Wednsday there's going to be an update for the PS3 that allows players to earn Trophys. I'm not sure what games exactly will have those (Super Stardust HD will be the first) but i am totaly going to be a trophy whore.

 

[Evilducks]

Jumplion, saying somebody is being "burned" by everybody responding to him is immaterial without providing any examples of this actually occurring. I don't even believe you are arguing about the same thing he is. I'm actually curious as to what you think this discussion is about exactly.

Considering Tempdude0 has most of the facts in hand on MGS4 I think he's probably watched most, if not all of, MGS4. Since most of what he is arguing about is delivered through painfully long cut-scenes he doesn't need to be the one behind the controller, as the game-play is irrelevant to his argument.

You tell me, i think this whole argument is pointless as everyone has their opinion but to me Tempdude0 is trying to imply his opinion (or more accurately Yahtzee's) as fact. And i had an example of indigo_Dingo proving him wrong. Of course, it all depends on how you see "burning" as in my opinion tempdude0 is getting burned by his own points. You may think that he's the most sense out of anyone here but that is your opinion and i don't have to prove it to you because it is your opinion

I'm still waiting for a reply on what exactly this argument is.

Ah, as I suspected, you don't even know what you're talking about. You don't know what the argument even is and yet you claim somebody is being proven wrong.

The only thing Tempdude0 has been 'proven' wrong on (much like myself) were details of the story. The details were never what the argument was about. We don't care that a ninja was made by NASA, it was just an example. He got an example wrong and admitted that indigo_Dingo pointed out a plausible answer that invalidated that particular example. Tempdude0 has admitted his ranting nature, which leads to lots of WORDS WORDS WORDS, which, when picked apart, will lead to minor flaws. The argument remains sound though.

How about you pipe in about victors when you actually figure out what is being discussed. Also, quit being a fanboy, this review was hardly scathing. Yahtzee even endorsed it if you could get through the first 5 games, hell, you probably only need to play 3 of them.

 

[Evilducks]

you may have something there. but comparing Halo 3 to MGS4 is like comparing Peanut Butter M&Ms to a 5 Course Italian feast. After eating a bunch of M&Ms, you probably won't have room or appreciation for the feast, but you'll pick at it and make amateur comments about its garishness.

Both stories were equally sci-fi pulpy to me. Neither would entice me to read a book about them. I've read good books, these are not them. They are enjoyable in their own ways, but not literary masterpieces that will be remembered for all time.

 

[Jumplion]

Jumplion, saying somebody is being "burned" by everybody responding to him is immaterial without providing any examples of this actually occurring. I don't even believe you are arguing about the same thing he is. I'm actually curious as to what you think this discussion is about exactly.

Considering Tempdude0 has most of the facts in hand on MGS4 I think he's probably watched most, if not all of, MGS4. Since most of what he is arguing about is delivered through painfully long cut-scenes he doesn't need to be the one behind the controller, as the game-play is irrelevant to his argument.

You tell me, i think this whole argument is pointless as everyone has their opinion but to me Tempdude0 is trying to imply his opinion (or more accurately Yahtzee's) as fact. And i had an example of indigo_Dingo proving him wrong. Of course, it all depends on how you see "burning" as in my opinion tempdude0 is getting burned by his own points. You may think that he's the most sense out of anyone here but that is your opinion and i don't have to prove it to you because it is your opinion

I'm still waiting for a reply on what exactly this argument is.

Ah, as I suspected, you don't even know what you're talking about. You don't know what the argument even is and yet you claim somebody is being proven wrong.

The only thing Tempdude0 has been 'proven' wrong on (much like myself) were details of the story. The details were never what the argument was about. We don't care that a ninja was made by NASA, it was just an example. He got an example wrong and admitted that indigo_Dingo pointed out a plausible answer that invalidated that particular example. Tempdude0 has admitted his ranting nature, which leads to lots of WORDS WORDS WORDS, which, when picked apart, will lead to minor flaws. The argument remains sound though.

How about you pipe in about victors when you actually figure out what is being discussed. Also, quit being a fanboy, this review was hardly scathing. Yahtzee even endorsed it if you could get through the first 5 games, hell, you probably only need to play 3 of them.

I really don't want to get into a pointless argument here, but i'll defend what i think needs defending.

Finaly, someone understands that i have no idea what this whole pointless argument is about! Why are you even arguing? Are you trying to achieve a false sense of security that you just happend to be a better arguer than the people that you are arguing against because apparantly your opinon is better than everyone else?

Okay, i have been reading Tempdude0's arguments from I believe page 20 or 21. I understand what he's saying i just don't understand his reasons and what exactly he's defending. If i started where Terra started arguing with Mspencer then i would probably have a better idea of why the hell all of you are arguing in the first place. And you say that i am claiming that he is being burned when i have clearly stated that in my FUCKING OPINION he is being proven wrong tremendously. I'll say it again, if you think that he makes the most sense out of everyone else then that is your OUCKING FPINION and in no way give you the right to say that i am wrong because my opinion just happend to be different then yours.

From what i can deduct, this whole argument IS about the plot and details of the story as both of you are saying (from what i can see) that the MGS series is badly written. Saying that obviously means that the details of the story and the plot itself is (in your opinion) badly written. I'm not sure if you yourself know what you're arguing about.

I do admit, however, that it was a bit hypocritical for me to argue in something i don't know fully but i thought i knew enough of it anyway.

And i am not a fanboy, infact i have stated time and time again that i have never played an MGS game up until this point and i didn't find the plot at all too confusing (aside from a question or two)

When everyone replied to someone trying to disprove them through various quotes (I.E. You, VeryObvlivious, Tempdude0. ect..) then it really shows that this whole thing is pointless.

I am just waiting for you or anyone else to quote every paragraph i wrote and say a bunch of random shit that has nothing to do with what i wrote or just trying to nitpick at a sentence or two of a few letters and totaly exploit it to something i did not intend for it to be intended and then i reply saying what i really meant and then you nitpick on something I wrote back.

tis' an endless cycle.

*shudder* that was disturbingly fun....

 

[Evilducks]

The world would be a very dull place if everybody just accepted everybody else has an opinion. If this is getting to you then stop reading it. You admit you don't understand whats being argued and yet feel inclined to insert your opinions on the debate.

I don't want to break it to you but I will anyway. Just because somebody has an opinion doesn't make it impervious to being wrong. If I had the opinion that we didn't land on the moon I would be wrong, it would be my opinion, it would just be wrong. Perhaps you need something less debatable (though I find it equally absurd). If I was of the opinion that there was no oceans on the planet Earth, it would be my opinion, but it would still be wrong. I could come up with stupid arguments all I want to defend my stupid opinion, it wouldn't make it any less wrong. Whatever person told you that all opinions are valid should be slapped. This is the case when it comes to subjective topics, but in most cases somebody is wrong.

There are very simple and agreed upon principles to what makes a story well written and this story doesn't follow them. Rules about exposition, timing, pacing, fluff, plot devices, etc. Maybe if it only broke rules in a couple places there would be room for debate, but this breaks the rules of good writing so often that it isn't really up for debate in my opinion.

So, in the end I can say your opinion is wrong all I want when it is indeed wrong. It may be your opinion that it's not, but you're still wrong.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

you may have something there. but comparing Halo 3 to MGS4 is like comparing Peanut Butter M&Ms to a 5 Course Italian feast. After eating a bunch of M&Ms, you probably won't have room or appreciation for the feast, but you'll pick at it and make amateur comments about its garishness.

Both stories were equally sci-fi pulpy to me. Neither would entice me to read a book about them. I've read good books, these are not them. They are enjoyable in their own ways, but not literary masterpieces that will be remembered for all time.

MGS4 has atleast a half way believeable story. In halo 3 the master chief can fall through an ATMOSPHERE(Thats a huge distance) And not die from say heat, reentry, I dunno hitting the ground in a big metal suit? He gets up yet a few bullets kill him? WTF?! MGS series is atleast trying to fix some of its earlier kiddy mistakes and atleast it half way wraps up all the plot lines and characters.

 

[Jumplion]

The world would be a very dull place if everybody just accepted everybody else has an opinion. If this is getting to you then stop reading it. You admit you don't understand whats being argued and yet feel inclined to insert your opinions on the debate.

I don't want to break it to you but I will anyway. Just because somebody has an opinion doesn't make it impervious to being wrong. If I had the opinion that we didn't land on the moon I would be wrong, it would be my opinion, it would just be wrong. Perhaps you need something less debatable (though I find it equally absurd). If I was of the opinion that there was no oceans on the planet Earth, it would be my opinion, but it would still be wrong. I could come up with stupid arguments all I want to defend my stupid opinion, it wouldn't make it any less wrong. Whatever person told you that all opinions are valid should be slapped. This is the case when it comes to subjective topics, but in most cases somebody is wrong.

There are very simple and agreed upon principles to what makes a story well written and this story doesn't follow them. Rules about exposition, timing, pacing, fluff, plot devices, etc. Maybe if it only broke rules in a couple places there would be room for debate, but this breaks the rules of good writing so often that it isn't really up for debate in my opinion.

So, in the end I can say your opinion is wrong all I want when it is indeed wrong. It may be your opinion that it's not, but you're still wrong.

Well, atleast you didn't sound as snobbish in this post then your last one and for that i am grateful.

But it still doesn't make any sense to me why you guys are arguing about MGS having bad writing.

"Rules about exposition, timing, pacing, fluff, plot devices, etc. Maybe if it only broke rules in a couple places there would be room for debate, but this breaks the rules of good writing so often that it isn't really up for debate in my opinion."

However, all of that is purely an opinion. The whole "bad writing" argument is purely an opinion as there cannot be a fact that the series is badly written. I personally believe that hte MGS series is very well written if a bit clustered at times and that is my opinion. Is it wrong? No. can it be wrong to someone else? Yes. Does that still make my opinion wrong? No.

This "debate" isn't really a debate as just people with different opinions of MGS arguing and it never ends well (i should know, i have arguments with my friend all the time, hell a recent one i had was between a game having bad graphics or bad art direction. guess which one i was?)

And one mroe thing, i'm not saying that we should all just stop arguing all together, quite the oposite infact i love arguing if it's civilized and just for the sake of arguing, but this particular "debate" is pointless as no one understands where the other is coming from and everyone else thinks the other is a retard.

This is my final post in this thread unless someone replies to this one in which case that will be my last reply.

 

[Pugjce]

Two things: Stop saying that because MGS4 is not a literary masterpiece, it is not good. The fact that you'd have to debate this point to the ends of the internet world can likely be crediting to the fact that the game is much better then you're giving it credit for. Or maybe you dislike it, whatever. God forbid we all like the exact same things.

Second: If, at any point during a debate, you reference some rule, in this case the "supposed rules of writing" (which any good author would tell you that the purpose of literary devices and "rules" are to know them so that you can break them: this is a very basic creative lit concept, feel free to dispute it, though), and then assume that since your opposition in the debate does not follow these rules he is somehow immediately wrong, please feel free to get up, go to seek anyone who is involved in any sort of formalized debate team/teaching, and then ask them to explain to you why such an act is debate suicide.

Your opposition will never take you serious, henceforth, nor will most onlookers.

Saying "You're entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong anyway" is pretty much equivalent to referencing the Nazi's. You've taken the point of a debate, and pushed it down a hill, because you have too much nerd-rage or feel the need to make sweeping generalizations.

Your credibility, it has gone out the window. Say goodbye.

 

[Evilducks]

MGS4 has atleast a half way believeable story. In halo 3 the master chief can fall through an ATMOSPHERE(Thats a huge distance) And not die from say heat, reentry, I dunno hitting the ground in a big metal suit? He gets up yet a few bullets kill him? WTF?! MGS series is atleast trying to fix some of its earlier kiddy mistakes and atleast it half way wraps up all the plot lines and characters.

No, it's really not. You're pointing out the difference between cutscenes and gameplay. MGS suffers from gaps in this just as badly as Halo ever has.

However, all of that is purely an opinion. The whole "bad writing" argument is purely an opinion as there cannot be a fact that the series is badly written. I personally believe that hte MGS series is very well written if a bit clustered at times and that is my opinion. Is it wrong? No. can it be wrong to someone else? Yes. Does that still make my opinion wrong? No.

Try arguing that when you turn a paper into a professor in college, let me know how it works out for you. Make sure you retell the same points over and over again and leave big plot holes. Let me know what any student of literature will tell you about its quality. Your opinion may be different, but it can definately be wrong.

Remeber, just because you like something doesn't validate it as good literature. I enjoy many things that are bad, it makes them good to me, but it doesn't make them good.

 

[Evilducks]

Two things: Stop saying that because MGS4 is not a literary masterpiece, it is not good. The fact that you'd have to debate this point to the ends of the internet world can likely be crediting to the fact that the game is much better then you're giving it credit for. Or maybe you dislike it, whatever. God forbid we all like the exact same things.

Second: If, at any point during a debate, you reference some rule, in this case the "supposed rules of writing" (which any good author would tell you that the purpose of literary devices and "rules" are to know them so that you can break them: this is a very basic creative lit concept, feel free to dispute it, though), and then assume that since your opposition in the debate does not follow these rules he is somehow immediately wrong, please feel free to get up, go to seek anyone who is involved in any sort of formalized debate team/teaching, and then ask them to explain to you why such an act is debate suicide.

Your opposition will never take you serious, henceforth, nor will most onlookers.

Saying "You're entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong anyway" is pretty much equivalent to referencing the Nazi's. You've taken the point of a debate, and pushed it down a hill, because you have too much nerd-rage or feel the need to make sweeping generalizations.

Your credibility, it has gone out the window. Say goodbye.

I never said the game was bad, I said the game has bad writing. Stop arguing against points I never made, god forbid we actually have a real debate.

Breaking so-called "rules-of-writing" when done in a creative way is one thing. Breaking rules in a way that is just poor storytelling is another. Being overly repetitive can be clever when it proves a point, it is bad when it bores the audience. Saying it breaks the established rules of a genre is suicide if you rely on the rules alone. It's not even that all good writing follows a certain set of guidelines, it's that most bad writing contains certain flaws. These flaws being readily apparent in this story. Unless you want to argue that pointless repetition is 'good writing' in this context?

MGS4 repeats the stories of the previous games in a way that doesn't provide enough information to those new to the series and in a way that provides far too much repeated exposition to those who are familiar with the series. Tell me why this is good writing. I'll tell you why it is bad writing. It pulls the reader out of the story, it forces them to repeat information they already know, it talks down to the audience.

If opinions cannot be wrong, then what is the point of debate? Last I checked, it was to prove or at least convince either that person or a 3rd party that the opinion is flawed.